Welmer

51 responses so far ↓

• 1 Default User // Sep 3, 2009 at 4:19 pm

  I think the rise of the seduction community brought men together. They started to talk in ways that were not allowed in “polite society.” The connected nature of the Internet allowed them to share ideas. The scales started to fall from their eyes. They began to realize that their problems scoring women represented something deeper. Each man began to realize he was not the only one. And then the recession hit…

• 2 BeltainAmerica // Sep 3, 2009 at 7:21 pm

  I would say it had little to do with men becoming more aware on their own and almost everything to do with women finally catching on how biased things were for their side.

  Women fall to the blame game constantly now. They cheat so they scream rape. They don;t get a job they scream sexual bias. They want to fool around they get a divorce and get paid for it.

  It took years for this to spread and become common knowledge for them but once it did it became so common that there really isn’t a man under the age of 45 who hasn’t been a victim.

  But it took that long for the victims to out number the “safe” men who gave the younger men over to the beast.

• 3 Grim // Sep 3, 2009 at 7:49 pm

  Default user is probably right about the seduction community bringing men together.

  Personally I found the MRA stuff from looking for dating tips after I had a girlfriend try to destroy my career with a series of false allegations. It seemed everything I was brought up to believe concerning women was completely wrong and someone must have the answers.

  So I found Roosh and Roissy, then Gleen Sacks and many more. And a lot of things that did not makes since that had banged around in my head for years suddenly starting making sense.

  For years I blamed men for the decay and decline I saw everyday. When I finally learned the hard truths I became deeply ashamed of my actions and beliefs. I had spent a long time slandering fully half the human race.

• 4 ganttsquarry // Sep 3, 2009 at 8:03 pm

  Funny you should write this. I have been thinking some of the same things myself. Especially on what I have chosen to write about.

  I have been reading MRA type stuff for a few years and found Roissy about a year ago. I found your blog of course, thru Roissy. I can only speak for myself but Roissy’s “teachings” (and the men similar in mindset) really inspired me. One of these days I plan to write at length on why.

  I think it is mainly from the focus on men as individuals and how proactive steps can be made to improve an individual mans lot in life. Reading MRA is fine, but how many times can you read about a man getting screwed in a myriad of different ways, before you throw up your hands and say forget it.

  This change in my attitude was the impetus to me creating my own little blog and commenting at places like yours. I read alot but never even commented before the last couple of months.

  when I 1st started blogging, my intention was to write about men’s issues, but to include other stuff as well. I still plan on doing that, but clearly my focus has been almost entirely on issues that effect men. How many men does the world need writing mediocre articles on health care reform anyway?

  I’ve rambled too long as it is, but I’ll say quickly that I think this was inevitable. I think alot of us guys are around the same age, give or take a few years, and have been uniquely effected by the cultural changes becoming more pronounced. Maybe it could have happened a year ago or a year from now, but it was going to happen.

• 5 novaseeker // Sep 3, 2009 at 8:04 pm

  I think that the trend has to do with technology catching up , finally. Men have been getting rooked for 20 years, but male spaces where men could chat about this have diminished in that same time frame. I think that the internet changed that. The rise of blogs and forums and anonymous sharing has really added momentum to this, as has the rising awareness of younger men that they are getting set up for a royal screwing in some woman’s “starter marriage”.

• 6 Warren // Sep 3, 2009 at 10:49 pm

  Fred Reed called for a marriage strike as early as 2001, maybe earlier.

  Men have been complaining about divorce for years.

  This movement has been around for years.

• 7 miles // Sep 3, 2009 at 11:17 pm

  For me, it was counting up the 17 or so aquaintances or friends that have been divorced because their wives left them for other people, or were cheating, but STILL had to pay out the wazoo for the priveledge, and continue to pay exorbitant child support in many cases even though they have their kids more than their ex-wives do. WTF is that?

  Learning about how biased our divorce and custody laws were, I wondered who-in-the-hell would devise such an evil “system”. After initially thinking it was “educated” women, who wanted to punish men for marrying waitresses, sales clerks, church girls, and the like, by rigging the system against them, I eventually came to a different and much more sinister conclusion:

  Feminism is just a branch of Marxism, created by the Frankfurt School and the old Kremlin. It has gotten a life of its own as the progenitors of the movement are all dead, and its first and second generations of recruits are its cardinals, priests and missionaries at this time. However, its original intent was to almost-assuredly to depopulate the West, create a matriarchy in the West with all the attendant thugary that is inevitable in a matriarchy after a generation or two (look at Northern England’s white underclass), and to demoralize the West.

  I think our laws are the genesis for what is happening because they do not punish one spouse for being a bad spouse, they punish the male all the time almost no-matter-what financially. It gives women a built-in-retirement-lottery-plan also. They always think they can hoodwink a wealthy-old-codger and divorce-rape-him later. Its a myth, and most really dont end up doing that, so feminism is a lie to its most loyal adherents also.

  There is another “reason” that the men’s rights movement has heated up that is beyond the numbers of men who have been screwed over beyond belief by judges and social workers. Its the fact that so many men in their 30′s and 40′s are unmarried, and many have never been married at this time. Has it ever been like this before? Pretty-good-looking-in-shape-men with decent finances struggle to find acceptable wives who are not really overweight or outright homely, while most of the women in the top 50% of attractiveness (because so many of the women in the lower 50% of attractiveness are usually lard-asses), are simply chasing the top 10-20% of men in pure physical attractiveness. Lots of astonishingly attractive men remain single well-after they ever intended to be. They are beginning to ask, “why are things this way?”.

  The mancession, with all the attendent outsourcing of manufacturing, insourcing of illegals doing construction work, insourcing of H1B tech help, placement of females in H.R. and in supervisory positions they have no qualifications for whatsoever, has also aggravated men passed over for promotions they deserved, etc.

  Lots of guys are now seeing that the game of life is pretty damn rigged against them out there. They are angry about it.

  Just imagine if we were insourcing a bazillion Eastern Europeans, Brazillian, Argentinian, Ecuadorian, and Middle Eastern women to do all those “office-girl” jobs. Women would be absolutely livid, but men have faced an economic onslaught of roughly this nature since the mid-80′s.

• 8 BeltainAmerica // Sep 3, 2009 at 11:47 pm

  Thats an interesting view point Miles. If I get your point correctly you are saying that pretty much everything we are facing today in illegal immigration, socialization, gender and racial biased laws, etc stem from feminism.

  If that is what you are saying then I wholeheartedly agree with you.

  If I am miss reading you then sorry!!!

  My only question would be how do you think feminism got started? I have played with this one alot and cannot come up with a solid answer.

• 9 novaseeker // Sep 4, 2009 at 5:43 am

  I think it actually goes back much farther than that.

  In its roots, feminism predates the association that second wave feminists had with academic Marxism. The movement started in the late 19th century, and came about more or less as a result of the general emancipation of society, and the economic changes ushered in by the industrial revolution. The seeds for the changes we see today were sown back then. For example, the movement towards mother custody on divorce started in the late 19th century, and consolidated in the early 20th century. By the time of first wave feminism (suffragettes), mother custody was commonplace on divorce. Of course that primarily became toxic later with the introduction of no-fault and so on, but the seeds of the idea that “children belong with their mother” is something that goes back for more than a century now, which is why it is so damned hard to dislodge (and of course feminism is disinterested in dislodging it precisely because mother custody was feminism’s earliest victory).

  When you look at early feminism, it had its roots in a combination of (1) Victorian values run amok and (2) the changes of the industrial revolution creating different working conditions and economic conditions. The onset of modernity virtually guaranteed female suffrage at some stage. The way that it happened, though, in the Anglo countries in particular, was very tied together with Victorian ideas about women and men – in particular, that women are the moral sex, and men are the immoral sex. Many of the initiatives of the early feminists were directed at this – for example the temperance movement, which led to prohibition → this was an early example of the attitude Victorianism had given women about themselves, and about men. Women were the guardians of virtue, and in a context where their suffrage was inevitable, they would use that suffrage to exercise moral control over “bad men”. These kinds of “moral crusades” have always typified women’s politics in the Anglosphere, and they reflect the deep-seated anti-male bias that existed in the Victorian age.

  Of course in Victorian days, that bias was counterbalanced by men having a defined and protected/respected role in families and in society. As the 20th century moved forward, various pressures were exerted against that. Eventually Marxism came into the picture, but not at first. The sexually liberated women of the 20s were not Marxists in any meaningful way. It’s also important to remember that the kind of liberation we saw in the 20s was only “stopped” by virtue of war and depression. The movement reasserted itself quickly in the 1950s (what historians now call the 60s before the 60s) and became open and notorious in the 1960s-70s as we know. When you look at the 20th century that way – seeing depression and war as a temporary interlude that delayed the women’s liberation movement for a few decades – the events of the last few decades of the 20th century make more sense and are placed, I think, in their proper context.

  Of course second wave feminism certainly WAS influenced a lot by Marxism. Radicals like MacKinnon and Brownmiller and Morgan and so on were openly Marxist in perspective. But there were many other elements at play as well, including the Victorian tendency to elevate women morally. It’s against that background of assumed female moral superiority that a conspiracy theory like “Patriarchy” makes some sense to women – after all, men are, at bottom, base and evil in their view, or at least more base and evil than women are. Second wave’s ideas about how the world would be better if it were run by women – an idea which many women even today firmly believe regardless of their personal politics – similarly find their basis in a Victorian view of men and women. And above all our family court system, as well as the prevailing popular view of divorce, is steeped in this Victorian perspective – divorce is high because men are bad, and we need the laws to protect our virtuous women and children from bad men. In conscious view, the family courts and the social consensus about divorce and family and so on are much more rooted in Victorianism than they are in Marxism, I think.

  Today’s feminists are not generally Marxists, but they are almost all Victorian-minded sexists when you scratch beneath the outer surface of “equality” rhetoric. If you delve into the details of any thorny issue between men and women, whether it be rape, DV, divorce, etc., you will quickly see that they easily and naturally revert to a position that assumes women are, most of the time, virtuous while men are, most of the time, the bad guy, and that the laws are justified because of this.

  We’re living in a kind of time warp today. We have the trappings of advanced modernity but the underlying culture of the Victorian era in our assumptions about men and women. This is why no matter what women seem to do (running over husbands in cars, raping and killing 6 year old girls, castrating their husbands with glee), they get minimal censure, and get wrapped in an embrace of understanding, sympathy and concern. They are still deeply presumed to be the moral betters of men. And that deep societal presumption drives the misandry we see in the culture everywhere today.

  When feminism demanded – and received – political equality, I think that this was clearly very popular with women, both because it was intuitive at the time, but also as a means to the end of eventually exercising what they felt was needed control over men. Because women are “better”. You see the same attitude today in the calls for Wall Street to be feminized, in groups like Code Pink, in the lack of concern of groups like AAUW at the lack of male academic achievement and so on. The will to power of women is mostly based on their deep assumption that they are better than we are, that they are more moral than we are, and that therefore we need to be controlled, to some degree, by them. That, I think, is the basis of contemporary feminism: female sexism and misandry towards men, even if expressed in a nuanced and subtle way.

• 10 Kevin K // Sep 4, 2009 at 5:44 am

  The best challenge to feminism is from popular evolutionary psychology and I notice that a lot of the audience at Roissy’s and here read and comment Steve Sailer’s site. Sailer is mostly interested in immigration, racial and political issues and will only occasionally mention feminism as an issue, but I think his framework for thinking of things has been adopted by a lot of younger writers who are taking it different directions. But, yeah, why now? I don’t know.

• 11 Doug1 // Sep 4, 2009 at 6:02 am

  Welmer –

  One thing that gets me to scratching my head about this emergent consciousness about men’s issues is how quickly it seems to have sprung out of nowhere. Well, to be sure, it only seems to have come from nowhere; it had been bubbling up for decades, but until recently nobody seemed to take it seriously.

  As you say, it’s been slowly but fairly quietly fermenting for decades, but among lots of largely disconnected voices. Often the voices of men who’d been personally hurt by divorce, and shocked by how unfair the legal system is towards men in divorce. So why is it snowballing now?

  Large parts of Gen Y in their 20s now, it’s mid betas and down especially, are post college and feeling dating pain acutely. Plus the post early 1990s divorce law reforms that are so horrifically unfavorable to men have had time to produce such a ton of terrible results even when it was the wife who cheated or just left for no good reason (which is the reason for most divorces for the last few decades), that it’s finally seeping into mass young male consciousness how bad a deal marriage has become. What with it’s 50% divorce rate 70% initiated by women and another 20% forced by them. Especially since the girls that marry most betas and higher beta men have spent THEIR 20s chasing alphas, which not only left most men (betas) high and dry without much sex in their 20s but also lead to much greater likelihood that their previously alpha chasing wife who settled for them, would divorce them. Men might not exactly know all this before reading Roissy but they’ve been feeling something like this or a lot of it, if murkily. Gen Y men have in particular.

  As Nova said the seduction community also came along and has been building for more than a decade now and is now readily findable by men who are looking for a way out of the dating desert they’ve experienced post college in their 20s. It’s there on the net and in books but for many who aren’t immediately prepared to believe, or so desperate that they’ll try anything and are the types to take such plunges without pre existing belief, it still seemed if intriguing, a bit hard to believe it could work for more than a tiny number of men.

  Plus many guys, a great many, of all ages have for a long time been feeling that just about all programs of the left enforced by PC taboos against loud complaint, are to be achieved on the backs of white males, and only on the backs of white males. This is true not only of AA for NAMs, but also of feminism secured AA for women, and general “you go girl” attitudes of the whole culture, with males and particularly white males expect to stand uncomplainingly aside while this “marvelous” leftist social engineering took place at their expense.

  You mentioned the last two years Welmer. Well guess what, about 2.4 years ago this guy named Roissy on the web started blogging with excellent and sharp bitingly witty writing. His primary purported focus was game and what really makes women tick. Before long it was clear there was a whole world view attached, and that included not only game and specific PUA techniques and philosophy, but his coherent theories of gender realism based upon Evolutionary Psychology and his own acute game informed observations. It also included dead on anti feminism and an acute sense of the injustice of recent feminist divorce law “reform” and other feminist law injustice and towards men. As well he made clear how pervasive misandrous and male pussifying feminism has become in the media and schools, and how much this has made most men sexually unattractive to hot or even cute or average women. That plus the fact that women no longer need men to do ok financially, especially before wanting children, is why so many beta 20 somethings can’t get laid these Gen Y days.

  In other words Roissy put it all together. Further his blog steadily and strongly built in readership and commenting volume since it’s inception, and has for about a year now been really big and now pretty huge, with widely expanding notice, favorable and hostile both. Roissy now clearly stands for something, and that’s the intersection of game and youthful, Gen Y alpha led, anti-feminism. Roissy has been making now widely felt waves, and they’re getting ever wider.

  So the simple answer to your question of why now is:

  Roissy. (And the Roissysphere.)

• 12 BeltainAmerica // Sep 4, 2009 at 8:06 am

  Funny you should mention Sailer, Kevin.

  Elusive Wapiti mentioned him to me today and I started reading his stuff only an hour or so.

  Some good stuff there.

• 13 Elusive Wapiti // Sep 4, 2009 at 9:48 am

  Great analysis as always, Nova.

  I think the “sudden” ascendance if the MRA world…in which MRA is defined as HL does as “men’s rights awareness”… is a function of pressure, time, and technology.

  Men’s rights activism has been around since before “The Myth of Male Power” or the first book that introduced me to the MRA world, “The Hazards of Being Male“. It has taken us literally decades to get traction in the culture, probably the same amount of time it took for feminism to gain traction in the culture.

  The ‘net was the key enabler, I think. It has allowed us to speak truth to all the men out there who have a vague awareness that something just isn’t right in the culture these days. This, coupled with the attention that the PUA community has received, let to a bonanza of awareness of men’s issues outside of the usual suspects of marriage strikers and divorced/alienated dads and neo-patriarchs. PUAs aren’t as easily dismissed as bitter chick-hating victimized men with an axe to grind, so their superficial worldly attractiveness and intersection with the men’s rights community has led to a higher profile for men’s rights in general.

  But let’s not leave the women out of the picture here, either. For all the vitriol that is levelled at women as a group, a good part of it justified adn earned, I think there is a sizable and slowly growing minority of women who see their fathers and brothers getting burned, who sense the vacuous nihilism that is feminism, and who recognize what kind of a raw / dead end deal that feminism is. They want to have a family and children, and they recognize that feminism not only devalues what they value, but makes a happy family and children a more elusive goal. They sense that feminism is contrary to their best interests, and requires them to reject their femininity for an ersatz rakish frat-boy masculinity.

  “The will to power of women is mostly based on their deep assumption that they are better than we are, that they are more moral than we are, and that therefore we need to be controlled, to some degree, by them.”

  We are more overtly, physically dangerous than they are too, particularly the left-hand tail, extremely visible portion of the male population responsible for most of the crime. Which provides a convenient pretext for them to use when they appeal to male alphas at the apex of the State to oppress the rest of us.

• 14 Elusive Wapiti // Sep 4, 2009 at 9:58 am

  “That, I think, is the basis of contemporary feminism: female sexism and misandry towards men, even if expressed in a nuanced and subtle way.”

  What about putting it this way Nova: “feminism is suffraged female sexism”.

  As you indicate, feminism was born out of the Liberal tradition of autonomy and self-determination, yet it did not acquire–or explicitly rejected–the “all men are equal” tradition of Liberalism at the same time. We can see this expressed in the vaguely female supremacist temperance movement, a political effort that should have made obvious to everyone the totalitarian tendency of the empowered female.

  Instead of accepting the entire Liberal package, feminism retained the grotesque Victorian misandry in lieu of a doctrine of equal worth, and thus gave political heft to a faction of by and for women that considered themselves superior beings to men.

• 15 emarel // Sep 4, 2009 at 10:20 am

  I won’t add much to what has been already written, other than to say that I’m glad that you did start your blog, Welmer. Your analysis and thinking concerning the many issues we face as men, and your talent in communicating them in writing are top shelf, as are those of many other current MRA bloggers.

• 16 Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech // Sep 4, 2009 at 10:41 am

  There are a couple of things that happened. The first is the internet. Feminists went to war against male only spaces. This had the effect of making it so men couldn’t communicate with each other and compare notes on what women were doing. As a result women and their enablers could claim, but its just you, so you must be the problem.

  The internet changed that by allowing men to directly talk to each other. Of course, we had to wait for blogs and other things so that’s why we haven’t seen happen earlier. Regardless, it was clear even in the late 90s that the internet would be a tool for MRA. I remember how over a decade ago when I found Rod Van Mechelen’s site. Finally, I had proof that I wasn’t the only one.

  Second, old men die and get replaced by young men. I have noticed that old men generally don’t understand what is happening with women. Most of the women they deal with are old as well and they have romanticized views of women in general. (My dad is a good example of this. He’s well over 60 and doesn’t get it. He never will get it. The things I talk about wrt MRA are so alien to his experience.)

  Younger men are more and more likely to get it. We have experiences of women oppressing us as soon as we started school. We have long memories of female teachers elevating girls and oppressing boys. And from there we have more telling experiences with females. The first generation of young men that had these experiences from when they were very young are now adults.

• 17 How did I get here? « Seasons of Tumult and Discord // Sep 4, 2009 at 11:21 am

  [...] did I get here? Posted on September 4, 2009 by Alkibiades Over at Welmer’s blog, he’s contemplating the seemingly sudden explosion of PUA/HBD/MRA/MGTOW blogs.  [...]

• 18 Alkibiades // Sep 4, 2009 at 11:23 am

  Welmer,

  Good post. You inspired me to write up a little of my personal journey on my blog.

• 19 novaseeker // Sep 4, 2009 at 11:35 am

  What about putting it this way Nova: “feminism is suffraged female sexism”.

  I think that’s a great way to summarize it, EW. They took on liberalism in general but deleted the egalitarianism (in all but name) and slipped into the same established Victorian patterns of woman worship.

  The first is the internet. Feminists went to war against male only spaces. This had the effect of making it so men couldn’t communicate with each other and compare notes on what women were doing. As a result women and their enablers could claim, but its just you, so you must be the problem.
  The internet changed that by allowing men to directly talk to each other.
  I agree very much with this as well, PMAFT. The lack of male spaces had the impact of virtually shutting down men for a couple of decades. Our ability to communicate with each other about these things was badly compromised. I do not think this was the intent of the feminists when they attacked male spaces and dismantled them, but as a side effect it was certainly welcomed. It effectively neutered us for quite some time. The net has changed that, and as the net moved into 2.0, the ease of personal expression increased, which has fueled the rise of the MRA-osphere. And as you rightly point out, this coincides interestingly enough with the entry into middle age of the generation which was the first to be fucked by feminism from an early age: the very late boomer/early Gen Xer. People between 35 and 45. Guys who have been through the ringer, and never lived in a pre-feminist age at least from the time they were teens. The emergence of this generation coinciding with the rise of Web 2.0 is what I think has given all of this expression gas at the present time.
  There is always danger, however. A small but growing movement is rising against anonymity on the internet. A lawsuit in NY where a model successfully sued an anonymous blogger for slander is sparking consideration of laws making anonymity on the internet illegal. This is chilling, because the intent is clearly to hem in speech on the net, and undoubtedly sites like ours are right in the middle of the bullseye of people like that.

• 20 Paul // Sep 4, 2009 at 2:03 pm

  Nova –

  Yes, the model was Liskula Cohen who sued Google to get the name of the blogger. Months ago I did a video concerning this topic.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCFjoeeOox8

  Liskula saw my video and contacted me privately. We exchanged a few e-mails and she actually is not a bad person. She claimed the media blew this all out of proportion. (I asked her to sue me for publicity, but she just laughed and said she likes my vids.)

  Anonymity is a good thing to support. However, for the movement to take the next step we will need more guys to be willing to speak out publically.

  I am not anonymous, but I don’t consider myself a movement type leader. I just like to poke fun at dogma.

  Of course, I do get death threats since I am public. But I have also met some really interesting people through what I do.

  Concerning the topic of the post – men become bold against an ideology once they realize they have nothing more to lose.

• 21 zed // Sep 4, 2009 at 2:07 pm

  The awareness only seems “sudden” to people for whom the awareness is relatively new. To some of us who have been waiting 40 years for a generalized waking up, it seems more like the culmination of years of effort by a lot of men who will forever remain anonymous, and a few who won’t – like Nelson Mandela was “suddenly” elected president, after spending 28 years in prison waiting for the day.

  While I think all the technological and social changes mentioned above play a part, I think the biggest factor is that the number of men who have been burned by the system is now reaching critical mass and that the male denial system is finally crumbling. One of the most perplexing aspects of the past 40 years has been the fact that men have by and large provided the bulk of the resistance to the message carried by those who finally settled on the term MRA to describe themselves. There were 2 distinct camps to the resistance, but they worked together in perfect concert to silence any man with the audacity to even suggest that all was not hunky-dory in marriage and wimminland – the traditionalists, and the male feminists or other “leftist progressives”.

  However, the culture has been re-manufacturing such men into MRA-aware individuals at a rate which has far outpaced the creation of new naive or willfully blind men. There is no better way to convince a man of the perversity of the family court system and the government-feminist complex than to feed him to the meat grinder of family court. Personal experience is always a more compelling teacher than some crazy person trying to change someone’s opinion. The “system” has relentlessly been moving men from the side of the scale where they believe in and support it, to the side which has been burned by it and no longer trusts it. One day the balance flips – but it is only the flip that is sudden and anyone who has watched the long buildup to it is not surprised. The biggest surprise is often that it took as long as it did.

  I think the collapse of the denial system can be likened to the fall of the Berlin Wall or the collapse of the Taum Sauk dam – the forces which finally brought them down had been at work for a long time, but extraordinary efforts by those invested in perpetuating them extended their life for a while – but not indefinitely.

  Men processed and broken by the family court system and the divorce-industrial complex do not just evaporate from the culture. They become like pollutants to the cultural ecosystem and one day they become a sort of cultural Cuyahoga River and catch fire. (http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=1642) I think the ecosystem analogy is useful here because all the social pollution coming from misandry is not going to suddenly just disappear. Younger men are far more aware of the pitfalls of marriage than men of the last 2 generations have been – in part because the pitfalls are much worse and more manifest. This means that they will not be such easy suckers for predatory females and women will become more and more stranded in their “meaningful careers” without any available men willing to rescue them from that life. Expect the weeping, wailing, and wholesale bashing of men to escalate over the next few years, which will have little other effect than to increase young men’s aversion to marriage.

• 22 Talleyrand // Sep 4, 2009 at 4:37 pm

  Nova,

  I think the feminists knew very well what they were doing when they broke up all the male exclusive groupings. Their goal has been the destruction of marriage and the destruction of masculinity.
  Any grouping of men is a threat to this. They understood it, and in egalitarian language they set out to destroy it to maintain power.
  The push against the anonymous bloggers will continue to grow.
  I anticipate that Roissy will get exposed eventually through a lawsuit of some kind. This will make him any even bigger figure in the movement.
  The push to suppress the hard truths of female sexuality will only make it grow further and the tyranny of our culture. Which leads me to Paul’s comment.

  Paul-

  I expect that many men are going to find themselves with nothing left to lose very rapidly. If things do not improve, it will be more than boldness, it will be out right rebellion.

  It takes a very small number of men to make things escalate beyond the control of the powers that be. It doesn’t have to be this way, but it very well could.

• 23 whiskey // Sep 4, 2009 at 4:47 pm

  My own sense of awakening to the reality, rather than romantic chivalry notions promoted by the mainstream culture, was dealing extensively with the female marketing/advertising folks in the workplace. Not just the casual anti-male attitudes, but the other attitudes the younger women had, and how much of a generational shift it was from older women. I could no longer deny what my own lying eyes and ears told me. This was before Roissy and the whole HBD/bio-con explosion.

  As for “what went wrong” I would say it goes even further back, back to the 80s. The 1780′s. The Free Love movement has roots in Mary Wollstonecroft. mother of Mary Wollstonecroft Shelley, Shelley, Keats, and Byron, the Oneida Commune of the 1840′s, Thoreau, Whitman, and others with a romantic view of human nature.

  It’s based on Christian notions. That most Christian of Poets, William Blake, in “Daughters of Albion” explicitly casts marriage and family as slavery and a prison.

• 24 Fidelbogen // Sep 4, 2009 at 6:12 pm

  “. . .the feminists knew very well what they were doing when they broke up all the male exclusive groupings. ”

  Damn straight they knew it.

  It’s axiomatic: if you wish to destroy a targeted group of people (read: destroy their power), you must limit their ability to interact with each other.

  In practice, that means cutting down the time they spend together and/or their ability to congregate in large numbers.

  The more you isolate them from each other, the more fragmented they as a group will become.

  Then they are sitting ducks, and you can pick them off one at a time.

  Male space has been ‘colonized’ by female and specifically feminist influence.

  Men must work purposefully to reclaim their cultural/social/psychological sector within society. They must decolonize themselves.

  Men of all kinds must start talking to other men of all kinds, about all kinds of things—and learning from each other! And they must do this in the absence of women or female influence of any sort.

  When this starts happening, brace yourself for the power surge!

• 25 Fidelbogen // Sep 4, 2009 at 6:16 pm

  As for the question “why the sudden awareness?”, all I can say is CRITICAL MASS . . . and leave it at that.

• 26 Dave from Hawaii // Sep 4, 2009 at 7:17 pm

  A lot of you have mentioned “the internet” as one of the primary reasons.

  I’ll take that observation even further – the very same characteristic of online discussions that lends itself to so much abuse – trolling, flaming, and so many “internet tough-guys” — namely the anonymity, is precisely why Roissy’s blog has brought about this burgeoning AWARENESS.

  The anonymity of the internet allows people to express what they truly think and feel without suffering the real-world repercussions one would suffer for daring to contradict the accepted conventional wisdom.

  How many times have men sat their in silence…while a large group of people in a social setting like work or a party all nodded in agreement to some feminist shibboleth?

  How many times have men sat their in silence, uncomfortable witnesses to emasculating behavior? Naked misandry? Many times, we men would face such things in real life and not even have a vocabulary to express the discomfort such encounters produced!

  I never heard of the word “misandry” until I discovered the MRA blogosphere 4 years ago!

  I believe Roissy is really just reaping the rewards of being an innovator in the “MRA Market.” By melding HBD/PUA observations with anti-feminism and cultural decline of the MRA movement, he hit the proverbial homerun. And the sheer number of commenters and public attention he’s garnered attests to it.

• 27 Talleyrand // Sep 4, 2009 at 7:24 pm

  Whiskey,

  You are right it goes back further. It goes back to Calvin and the age of enlightenment. The men bad woman good thing is calvinist, which is why I see a strong portion christianity as feminist sympathizers and collaborators, even if they seem unaware of it.

  The sheer blindness of the SoCons, or traditionalists, makes it clear that their frame makes it impossible to counter feminism or the collapse of western civilization.

• 28 julie // Sep 4, 2009 at 7:37 pm

  I have a much more broader outlook to why things are different today for men.

  I think mostly (men’s social) goes back to the day when feminist’s promoted, ‘Girl Power’.

  What many don’t know is the majority of women involved in this wanted “Girl and Boy power”. It is easy to say feminists didn’t like boys so they would never have allowed that but the truth is the majority of women who worked feminism had children and husbands that supported them to work in these areas prior to any of them being paid jobs.

  The problem really arose when the idea of freeing males and females from their gender roles upset religion and the staunch stand of masculinity and femininity.

  But it became acceptable for girls to be told, “You go girl, you show girls can do anything.”

  But if a girl was hurt trying to do something the boys did, the fathers and mothers would come down on him saying, “You should have been more responsible. You should have taken care of her”.

  Girls were allowed to escape their gender role expectations while boys were not. This lead to all the negative we have today between the sexes.

  Another thing is that still today it is just a wish to get into schools and teach children about freedom of choice and that they don’t have to follow gender roles. It is coming in through feminist groups and GLBT groups but heterosexual males still don’t have that freedom.

  The Internet IMHO has been a fantastic gift for men to challenge their roles in society. It doesn’t work the same way as feminism or GLBT rights (non law) but it will as it finds itself sneaking further and further into mainstream.

  “Women won’t change, women still expect men to be the equal and the hero”, is what I hear on mainstream radio these days.

  Men also say on radio and in newspaper articles, “We would welcome our move to challenge our roles” but women won’t marry us if we do.

  WELL, women don’t have that hold on men when men realise they are at a loss to even look sideways at a woman. They can’t marry her without divorce and paying for her lifestyle after marriage. They can’t have a few drinks and sexual intercourse without fear of being arrested for rape. They can’t defend themsleves from violence nor speak up about their own concerns without being shamed or attacked.

  They will just change and society will have to change with them.

  But in all fairness there is other factors. Yes lots more.

  Women were able to work feminism because they were not the breadwinners in homes at the time. This allowed alot of action. Men did not have this time for they were the breadwinners.

  Also, the men’s movement hasn’t been able to agree over the past decades. Some men wanted freedom while some men wanted feminism destroyed and women put back in the homes because once the women left the home, they believed, ‘the family fell apart’.

  ALL IMO. BTW, great blog.

• 29 Lukobe // Sep 4, 2009 at 9:17 pm

  Great points, Julie, especially “Girls were allowed to escape their gender role expectations while boys were not. This lead to all the negative we have today between the sexes” and “the men’s movement hasn’t been able to agree over the past decades.” Makes me think of something I read recently about libertarians and the Roissysphere. Libertarians have a hard time agreeing on things as well.

• 30 julie // Sep 5, 2009 at 4:48 pm

  Thanks for saying great points Lukobe.

  I too have wondered why we are where we are. I just dug a bit more into it than most.

  But I know in my heart and mind this is all wrong for so many reasons. It is just a shame that while the older men and women have woken up a new wave has been created.

  We are all being conned IMHO. Sex and money isn’t everything.

• 31 Lukobe // Sep 5, 2009 at 5:18 pm

  But… but.. TV told me so!

• 32 julie // Sep 5, 2009 at 6:09 pm

  Now I get to say, “Great point”, Lukobe. TV has made a huge impact.

  What breaks my heart the most is to see cultures who haven’t been affected. I see them on Sunday’s going to church; with their lovely dresses and suits and holding hands with a son on daddies shoulders and a daughter holding mummies hand or even a small tribe of their kiddies all dressed nicely, laughing and playing.

  Then I think, “Oh my God” what are we doing?

  You know, there is no misogyny or misandry in their culture.

  Who really is the superior race? I wonder TBH.

• 33 Lukobe // Sep 5, 2009 at 11:55 pm

  Not kidding here, but which culture is that, that has dresses, suits, and churches, but isn’t affected by TV, and has no misogyny or misandry?

  As for superior race, of course, no such thing.

• 34 Savvy // Sep 6, 2009 at 3:01 am

  Doug 1—You really think we’re all out there chasing Alphas, huh? Sounds like crap to me. In a wolf pack there is one Alpha pair. Then there are lots of nice Betas, some Omegas who are decent and if they aren’t, they are thrown out of the pack. I have a feeling there are some “Betas” who are actually Omegas and then Omegas who have since been thrown out of the pack.

• 35 julie // Sep 6, 2009 at 3:08 pm

  Hi Lukobe,

  I was talking about the small Pacific Islands in my comment.

• 36 Lukobe // Sep 6, 2009 at 7:33 pm

  I bet misandry and misogyny exist even there, unfortunately.

• 37 Always remember to plug your friends « In Mala Fide // Sep 7, 2009 at 2:32 am

  [...] see Alkibiades’ and Welmer’s posts on the same [...]

• 38 dana // Sep 7, 2009 at 4:04 pm

  i don’t know if girly opinions are welcomed here, but as a woman my men’s rights consciousness was raised by helping my husband (“the fugitive misdemeanant”) turn himself in after being on the lam for almost 10 years for breaking probation, owing money and failing to attend expensive court ordered “anger management” reeducation.

  because he pushed his ex girlfriend on her butt and called her a bitch.

  he lost everything he owned, his job, his apartment. and that was just the beginning of his travails with the VAWA.

  his life was utterly destroyed, he was living in a rented room after periodic bouts of homelessness, never staying at a job too long for fear of getting caught. this was AFTER serving his short, job and possession losing “work release” jail sentences that were ridiculous.

  because he pushed his ex girlfriend on her butt and called her a bitch at the age of 19

  i was flabbergasted by the “anger management” program he had to attend–abject feminist reeducation of no redeeming value at $40 a pop–i could not believe it, the state forces people into questionable “therapy” AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE after incarcerating them, which by the way he owed over $3000 for–to pay for his OWN incarceration. in the movie “brazil”, the main character is presented with a bill for his own incarceration and it is supposed to be chillingly absurd. guess its just normal

  anyway, i looked into the VAWA and child support ( another mess he got into at 21) and all of that in the wake of discovering all of this and have been a zealous supporter of men’s rights ever since and a strong proponent of repealing the 19th amendment

  his life is a walking catalog of abuse by the feminist utopia, from his hypergamous abusive alcoholic loving single mom, to his grasping whore ex

  it really opened my eyes

• 39 Lukobe // Sep 7, 2009 at 6:19 pm

  Dana, you’re a woman and you want to deny yourself the right to vote?

• 40 dana // Sep 7, 2009 at 6:29 pm

  lukobe, yes i would–in fact, i am likely never voting agian anyway as i have no political home, so whats the difference

  voting and democracy are overrated aspects of civil society. women voting undermines civil society by destroying the true bases for prosperity and security–stable rule of law and private property rights.

  women instinctively blur bright line rules ( cf. carol gilligans in a different voice) in favor of unpredictable cases by case “empathy”, they are redistributionist by nature — having evolved to redistrubute the wealth of men they attract to themselves and their children. the entire philosophical basis of the US constitution is alien to women–individualism first and foremost, they are congenitally incapable of preserving a US style constitutional republic

  hi welmer, whiskey, nova et al hope i’m not invading

• 41 Lukobe // Sep 7, 2009 at 8:19 pm

  The thing is, the 19th amendment doesn’t just guarantee women the right to vote; it guarantees men that same right.

  “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”

  I’m not suggesting that this could happen, but without a 19th amendment the government could as well take the right to vote away from men as away from women. (Neither would be likely to happen in any case, since I believe this right is enshrined in state constitutions as well.)

  I think everyone should have a vote, and that there should be true equal rights before the law. So, the 19th amendment stays. And, if you think about it, you should actually be for the ERA, too, no matter your position on men’s rights, women’s rights, what have you. Welmer and I have discussed this offline before.

• 42 Todd White // Sep 9, 2009 at 9:23 pm

  I’ll throw one idea against the wall and see if it sticks…

  The “Game movement” is a manifestation of the breakdown of elite authority and trust in America’s defining institutions (government, mass media, organized religion, universities, Wall Street, etc.)

  I once called the year 2006 “The Year of Shattered Illusions” because there were so many news events that undermined faith in our leaders and crippled hope in our future.

  You date the emergence of “men’s liberation” to “2 years ago.” That aligns with my theory that 2006/2007 was a critical point in time.

  And now, in 2009, those trends are accelerating.

  With Obama in charge, those of us who are conservative/libertarian are becoming more radicalized, less willing to work within established institutions, and more eager to find our own path.

  If what I’m suggesting has any degree of truth, the Game/Men’s Movement has major room for growth. And it might grow quite rapidly.

  -TW

• 43 Lukobe // Sep 9, 2009 at 11:11 pm

  I’m not really a part of either, but I’d think “game” and “men’s movement” should be separate concepts. Not all who subscribe to the former subscribe to the latter, and vice versa.

  And don’t forget about us leftatarians

• 44 dana // Sep 10, 2009 at 4:55 am

  lukobe, what is a leftatarian and how can that possibly not be a contradiction in terms? please answer on “knife wielding woman” if you want to discuss it with me, i don’t want to hijack this thread

• 45 Todd White // Sep 10, 2009 at 8:41 am

  I agree with you, Lukobe.

• 46 Puma // Sep 11, 2009 at 8:22 am

  Let us not forget Tom Leykis. Although he has now been silenced with a golden-handcuff, he was one of the first and most widely heard voices of MRA ideas mingling with PUA themes.

• 47 emdee1973 // Sep 11, 2009 at 3:03 pm

  “With Obama in charge, those of us who are conservative/libertarian are becoming more radicalized, less willing to work within established institutions, and more eager to find our own path.” Todd, your statement really struck a chord with me. This is exactly how I feel. I am an unemployed civil engineer who specializes in transportation infrastructure. I’m struggling to find work. The engineering and construction sectors were supposed to get a lot of ARRA funding, but thanks to the feminists and Obama’s lack of temerity, much of this funding was diverted to education, healthcare, social work, etc., i.e. occupations with high percentages of women workers. (See “No Country for Burly Men” by Christina Hoff-Sommers.) Obama clearly is not looking out for the working man. He hasn’t the courage, as he’s so aptly demonstrated. Given the current administration’s stance on gender, the ever-increasing influence of Marxo-Feminism, I wish more than ever to shuck the established institutions and chart my own path. I will not, indeed I cannot, function in a woman’s world. For me, life and liberty don’t exist in such a place and the pursuit of happiness would be entirely futile. Moreover, I am becoming more radicalized, as you put it. These “women”, if you can call them that, have hurt me directly. I should be out there fixing the nation’s roads, earning a good income, and moving forward with in life. But thanks to them, at least in part, I’m not. Thus, it’s suddenly become very personal. I’ve been observing the feminists’ tactics for about a decade now. What was once a simmering pot is now on the verge of boiling over. I’m starting to get really pissed. I think a lot of men feel the same way. Your statement was spot on from my perspective, an excellent articulation. Thank you.

• 48 emdee1973 // Sep 11, 2009 at 3:29 pm

  “With Obama in charge, those of us who are conservative/libertarian are becoming more radicalized, less willing to work within established institutions, and more eager to find our own path.” Todd, your statement really struck a chord with me. This is exactly how I feel. I am an unemployed civil engineer who specializes in transportation infrastructure. I’m struggling to find work. The engineering and construction sectors were supposed to get a lot of ARRA funding, but thanks to the feminists and Obama’s lack of temerity, much of this funding was diverted to education, healthcare, and social work, i.e. occupations with high percentages of women workers. (See “No Country for Burly Men” by Christina Hoff-Sommers.) Obama clearly is not looking out for the working man. He hasn’t the courage, as he’s so aptly demonstrated. Given the current administration’s stance on gender and the ever-increasing influence of Marxo-Feminism, I wish more than ever to shuck the established institutions and chart my own path. I will not, indeed I cannot, function in a woman’s world. For me, life and liberty don’t exist in such a place and the pursuit of happiness would be utterly futile. Moreover, I am becoming more radicalized, as you put it. These “women”, if you can call them that, have hurt me directly. I should be out there fixing the nation’s roads, earning a good income, and moving forward in life. But thanks to the feminists, at least in part, I’m not. Thus, the conflict has suddenly become very personal. I’ve been quietly observing the feminists’ tactics for about a decade now. What was once a simmering pot is now on the verge of boiling over. Now I’m angry. Now I’m ready to pick up the sword, so to speak. What alternative is there? Even dumbest beast will fight an agressor tooth and nail if she backs it into a corner. Is this really so radical? I think not. More and more men are reaching this understanding. In any case your statement was an excellent articulation. Thank you.

• 49 Dating Book // Sep 25, 2009 at 3:02 am

  [...] posted here:  How did this Sudden Awareness Emerge? | Welmer Share and [...]

• 50 Todd White // Nov 4, 2009 at 12:41 am

  Thanks, Emdee. Your story is a solid validation of that viewpoint.

• 51 Brian // Nov 21, 2009 at 3:16 am

  I’m 30 years old.. For me it was a combination of things I think..

  I guess it started when I realized and felt very viscerally that something was not right with our social construct and the malcontent I felt with the erie isolation of the disconnected family, friendship structure, and dating life..

  I found, along with every guy friend I know that women were remarkably isolated from my day to day environment. So like many of my friends I turned to the online dating thing.

  Everyone I know is spread all over the country and some if not most move from job to job. These are high paid professions mind you. So for me it was increasing feelings of isolation, marginalization from the workforce along with my other tech/engineer friends and utter horror I’ve witnessed my brother and others be subjected to in the family court system and divorce….

  I think it is a general sense of disenfranchisement. A feeling that men are not a part of the family and have been made superflourious and disposable to the family unit.

  All I knew is that I did not want to end up an isolated resource producing male for a woman that was not my wife and a child that I am not allowed to be a father to.

  I started to put things together and stopped watching TV or the News for that matter. It’s been about 8 years since I’ve watched TV for the most part.

  I disconnected from our ill society and my internal dialog began to awaken. It was a new awakening. I felt like neo from the matrix. when I do get a glimpse of pop culture I am ever so much more aware of the illness.

  I also took a Women’s Studies course and college that changed my life forever.. I knew then and there that I was not a part of this system anymore. I knew that we as men have been forced to serve women directly and through government. I want no part of this. I am white and male.

Leave a Comment